Re: Water rules for dry times (Maitland Mercury, April 3) outlining the raft of water saving measures for the lower Hunter, which include severe restrictions and heavy fines. If not observed!
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
It’s true that the reasons by which governments decide to do or not to do certain projects, an average member of the public can only speculate on.
Nevertheless, the reasons outlined in the article don’t come even close to what I regard logical.
It shows total lack of foresight.
According to the figures that have been forecasted by the experts, we are going to experience a 20 per cent increase in population over the next 20 years; anyone would think we’ll be needing more water . . . not more restrictions.
It’s true that we get long spells of drought, just as it’s true that many times the rain falls everywhere else but the catchment area.
That is why we should make use of the technology available such as pumps – so that we can take advantage of a deluge.
All that good water finds its way back to the sea when some of it could be pumped into the dams by constructing locks at strategic points of the rivers!
It initially costs money, but the cost would be more than justified by the return as that water can be used for irrigation and thus boost and improve production of crops and dairy products.
The theory of saving money by imposing restrictions rather than building a dam because it’s expensive.
Sounds like someone who is going across the desert and because a bigger container of water is very expensive takes a chance on a smaller container.
We see just about everyday on the news what happens in some of the countries, where because of various reasons struggle for water, we don’t have too.
We have the resources and know how to do better. Water is LIFE!
Salvatore Cocco, Rutherford